[1.2.xx] Supersonic Bomber Challenge

[Lonogan1]

Well guys and galls I think I broke the challenge ...

My attempt: http://imgur.com/gallery/IZPwP

Time: 427 Seconds  (max speed of approx 1300 m/s or Mach 4.2 according to Mechjeb)

Damage: 5 896 039 (Heat) !!!

Cost: 33 197 Funds

A = (826/427) * (50) = 96.72131147540984
B = (5896039/60209) * (30) = 2937.78621136375
C = (96617/33197) * (20) = 58.20827183179203

A + B + C = 3092.715794670952

Jeb, Bill, and Bob all just earned themselves a VERY tall cool one 

 

Mods Used: Tweakscale , BD Armory Continued, Mechjeb (For flight data only), and Airplane Plus (For the half length fuel tank in the nose)

Edited November 18, 2016 by Lonogan1

[MunGazer]

39 minutes ago, Lonogan1 said:

Well guys and galls I think I broke the challenge ...

My attempt: http://imgur.com/gallery/IZPwP

Time: 427 Seconds  (max speed of approx 1300 m/s or Mach 4.2 according to Mechjeb)

Damage: 5 896 039 (Heat) !!!

Cost: 33 197 Funds

A = (826/427) * (50) = 96.72131147540984
B = (5896039/60209) * (30) = 2937.78621136375
C = (96617/33197) * (20) = 58.20827183179203

A + B + C = 3092.715794670952

Jeb, Bill, and Bob all just earned themselves a VERY tall cool one 

 

Mods Used: Tweakscale , BD Armory Continued, and Airplane Plus (For the half length fuel tank in the nose)

Now that is what I'm talking about!  Out frikken standing sir.  What was that, 12 JDAMs?

I'm very glad to have your entry and it sets a very good example for one of the multiple ways an uber-high score can be achieved.

What's also interesting is that I think the damage scaling for heat transferred into a part may be non linear, which is cool.  Perhaps that's what mr. Bahamuto himself intended with his code, idk.

Anyway, thanks for participating and I will post you on the leaderboard once home from work here in about 5 hours or so

[Lonogan1]

1 hour ago, MunGazer said:

Now that is what I'm talking about!  Out frikken standing sir.  What was that, 12 JDAMs?

I'm very glad to have your entry and it sets a very good example for one of the multiple ways an uber-high score can be achieved.

What's also interesting is that I think the damage scaling for heat transferred into a part may be non linear, which is cool.  Perhaps that's what mr. Bahamuto himself intended with his code, idk.

Anyway, thanks for participating and I will post you on the leaderboard once home from work here in about 5 hours or so

Thanks man. Yeah I was derping around testing weapons on the target craft at the KSC and I was like flip it lets just bolt 12 JDAMs onto this little attacker and see how much pain can make... was not disappointed in the least.  I was afraid that the drag from all those bombs would hurt my time but surprisingly increasing it from one JDAM (what i had on it in testing) to twelve only cost about 50 seconds in time for a crazy amount of damage points. WORTH IT! Designing military crafts in KSP is kinda my thing so the craft for this only took me like 10 mins to throw together but still took hours to fine tune XD.

Part of my secret to getting that much damage was a set up and action group to fire all 12 bombs all at the exact same time so that none of the bombs were exploded mid air by others hitting the target first.

I'm going to crash now but I might see if I can find other crazy ways to do this challenge even though I've gotten a score that I honestly never though I could come close too. Might try seeing if i can go Speed of Heat (Mach 5+) or nuking it from orbit with missiles... idk time to pass out...

Fly "safe" enough ladies and gents.

EDIT: also just realized I forgot to mention that I used Mechjeb on my craft as well (for flight data) flew it by hand though... I don't trust Mechjeb with my airplanes. especially at Mach 4

Edited November 18, 2016 by Lonogan1

[MunGazer]

2 hours ago, Lonogan1 said:

EDIT: also just realized I forgot to mention that I used Mechjeb on my craft as well (for flight data) flew it by hand though... I don't trust Mechjeb with my airplanes. especially at Mach 4

That's perfectly fine, the rules are set up to encourage the usage of tools to make your flight data and control more precise, and even thorough automation is permitted; after all, real aircraft should strive for the same goals of reducing pilot workload while still retaining the appropriate level of pilot authority.

As payload mass increases with efforts to secure higher and higher damage scores, this challenge will see the speed and cost portion of the score fade into the background somewhat numerically in relation to the damage.  However, the size and mass of increasingly heavy payloads will also introduce engineering challenges both to stay supersonic capable, able to return to base properly, and to keep that edge needed for a tie breaker in the standings.  For instance, two pilots did the same damage as one another, but one of them made a faster ship and the other one made a cheaper one.  Despite the spelled out scoring system and weighting factors, the winning score in that comparison is hard to predict intuitively and only the numbers would tell.

In between the more competitive entries, there are definitely lots of opportunities to exhibit, as you said, crazy ways of doing it.

edit: I know you were just joking about nuking it from orbit with missiles, but as per rules, that will be nuking Using explosives or kinetic energy on it from orbit 30 kilometers MSL or less with missiles,

Edited November 18, 2016 by MunGazer

[DoctorDavinci]

8 hours ago, Lonogan1 said:

Kerbal Defense Systems (KDS) Aerospace accepts your challenge! Work on a new supersonic attacker shall begin post-haste! Get to it Bill and Bob or no snacks!

Also I was looking at DoctorDavinci's entry, it being the top score atm after all,  and noticed a very large damage score on his entry but I didn't see anything close to that heat damage in his posted video... I don't want to be pointing fingers  but I think either a mistake was made in his calculations (or understanding or the scoring system) or I'm being blind and not seeing the value in his video...it is almost 3 AM so my eyes might be dead.      

EDIT: I have been doing some testing at the KSC against the same target craft with Snake Eyes (same weapon DoctorDavinci used) and have not gotten over 71 320, best case, when a damage of 171 243 is listed in their post. Again I am not trying to point fingers I am just trying to solve what appears to be an error.

Anyhow, I will hopefully have a lovely supersonic attacker for you fine Kerbal killers tomorrow if Jeb doesn't crash the prototype to badly.

Funny how you are trying to solve an error and claim to not be pointing fingers yet you have blatantly accused myself of not being honest 

Then miraculously you manage figure out how to get a large heat damage score yourself ... perhaps an apology for your accusations are in order, n'est pas?

[Lonogan1]

1 hour ago, DoctorDavinci said:

Funny how you are trying to solve an error and claim to not be pointing fingers yet you have blatantly accused myself of not being honest 

Then miraculously you manage figure out how to get a large heat damage score yourself ... perhaps an apology for your accusations are in order, n'est pas?

I had a feeling that after I posted my scores that you would say something like that. I don't want to turn this thread into the two of us having a flame war over scores. All I was saying is that I saw you post a damage score that I did not see while watching your video and was wanting to know if it was an honest mistake on your part in either editing the video or a math/rules mistake. If it came across as an accusation of cheating/lying I am serenely sorry, it was not my intent, I was making that post very late at night so I was not choosing my words very carefully. Again, I did not mean to accuse cheating or lying, my intent was only to try to make you and MunGazer aware of what appeared to be an error and I am sorry if it seemed like an accusation of dishonestly.

As to my miracle, its simply a difference in scale. You dropped a very good payload of 6 x 500 lbs and a went into the absurd and dropped 12 x 1000 lbs (approx 4 times the payload weight) from a smaller aircraft, while timing them so that all 12 bombs hit at the exact same time (as apposed to your salvo drop). I actually should give you some credit, if it wasn't for your entry I would probably have tried to use maverick missiles and have gotten a much poorer score. I liked the way you used the bombs and was inspired to arm my craft similarly (multiple bombs dropped in salvo, which evolved into dropping all 12 at once) after my testing of 1 JDAM was showing scores approx 1/10th of your score. I just went a lot more Kerbal (absurd levels of crazy) with it than your quite realistic approach.

[DoctorDavinci]

12 minutes ago, Lonogan1 said:

I had a feeling that after I posted my scores that you would say something like that. I don't want to turn this thread into the two of us having a flame war over scores. All I was saying is that I saw you post a damage score that I did not see while watching your video and was wanting to know if it was an honest mistake on your part in either editing the video or a math/rules mistake. If it came across as an accusation of cheating/lying I am serenely sorry, it was not my intent, I was making that post very late at night so I was not choosing my words very carefully. Again, I did not mean to accuse cheating or lying, my intent was only to try to make you and MunGazer aware of what appeared to be an error and I am sorry if it seemed like an accusation of dishonestly.

As to my miracle, its simply a difference in scale. You dropped a very good payload of 6 x 500 lbs and a went into the absurd and dropped 12 x 1000 lbs (approx 4 times the payload weight) from a smaller aircraft, while timing them so that all 12 bombs hit at the exact same time (as apposed to your salvo drop). I actually should give you some credit, if it wasn't for your entry I would probably have tried to use maverick missiles and have gotten a much poorer score. I liked the way you used the bombs and was inspired to arm my craft similarly (multiple bombs dropped in salvo, which evolved into dropping all 12 at once) after my testing of 1 JDAM was showing scores approx 1/10th of your score. I just went a lot more Kerbal (absurd levels of crazy) with it than your quite realistic approach.

Apology accepted ....

As for my scores, if you watch the whole video you will notice that there are 3 screenshots at the end of it ... One being the DHB-69 Casper in the VAB and the other 2 being of the F3 window where a modular girder segment was destroyed with the temperature as stated in my score (mission time says 22 seconds but that is due to Jeb hopping out and planting a flag on the runway before I took the screenies of the F3 menu)

Anyways, good run ... you could have had a bit of a higher heat score with 12 JDAM's as a direct hit with one JDAM on a part would give you around 460 000 heat damage give or take a thousand .... 12 JDAM's can give you a possible 5 520 000 (give or take a few thousand) if each one has a direct hit on the same part at the same time

Hope to see more 'splosions from you ... I like your destructive tendencies

[Lonogan1]

8 minutes ago, DoctorDavinci said:

Apology accepted ....

As for my scores, if you watch the whole video you will notice that there are 3 screenshots at the end of it ... One being the DHB-69 Casper in the VAB and the other 2 being of the F3 window where a modular girder segment was destroyed with the temperature as stated in my score (mission time says 22 seconds but that is due to Jeb hopping out and planting a flag on the runway before I took the screenies of the F3 menu)

Anyways, good run ... you could have had a bit of a higher heat score with 12 JDAM's as a direct hit with one JDAM on a part would give you around 460 000 heat damage give or take a thousand .... 12 JDAM's can give you a possible 5 520 000 (give or take a few thousand) if each one has a direct hit on the same part at the same time

Hope to see more 'splosions from you ... I like your destructive tendencies

Now that I've gotten some sleep I just went back and looked at your video... damn my tired self. I finally saw the value you used as your score. I feel like a total doof.  My bad for making something of literally nothing other than my sleep deprivation XD

When North Kerbin Dynamics updates I'm probably going to try dropping the biggest non-nuclear bomb I can find to see what insanity it causes  I just need a plane first... BILL, BOB, JEB!!! TIME TO GET TO WORK!!!

 

EDIT: NKD is scheduled to have its 1.2.x beta release some time today!!!!! Brace you anuses mien Kerbals!

Edited November 18, 2016 by Lonogan1

[MunGazer]

1 hour ago, Lonogan1 said:

EDIT: NKD is scheduled to have its 1.2.x beta release some time today!!!!! Brace you anuses mien Kerbals!

 Laughable wording and great news.

Excellent job sorting that all out fellas.  It takes a good man to handle a misunderstanding with tact, admit to a mistake, and drive on afterward with your chin up.

I have decided to make a subtle addition to how my leaderboard is set up.  Henceforth, I will put an asterisk* at the end of entries that use kinetic force only to strike the target. In this manner, kinetic entries will form sort of a leaderboard within a leaderboard.

Edited November 18, 2016 by MunGazer

[Lonogan1]

Hey so I was wondering what people's opinions on multiple submissions is? The options that I was thinking of were either allowing multiple submissions that all can vie for a chance on the leaderboard, old school arcade game leaderboard style, or make it so that only one attempt can be active for the leaderboard per-person but they can re-sub if they get a better run later on after their original posting. I'm bringing this up because building BD Armory fighters and bombers is kinda what I do on KSP  and this challenge has really gotten my creative juices flowing... and well if I'm not careful I'll just end up building 20 something different planes for this and I don't want to be that guy who just plasters his name up and down the leaderboard. A possible solution for this is make a second submission option where the person just shows their design without scoring it so that they (mainly myself) can show their ideas w/o spamming the LB.

 

On a less spam happy note since we've seen Eidahlil build a craft that uses low cost to get a high score and I've build a craft that uses crazy damage to get a high score it would be awesome to see someone try to build a craft that gets its score mainly from ridiculous speed. Like hypersonic speeds, Mach 5+. Speed is 50% of the score weighting after all and it would be a shame if people ignored it to obsess over the biggest explosions. I'm trying to get a friend to join the challenge and he might be going the speed route but I'd love to see other people's takes on the challenge. Hell lets get Scott Manley or Nexter in on this if we can! Just don;t invite Danny2642 or he will just Kraken his way to victory.

Also has anyone seen the new model for the X-43 "Hyperblast" Scramjet from Mk2 Expansion?! I AM DROOLING!!!!!! 

[MunGazer]

30 minutes ago, Lonogan1 said:

The options that I was thinking of were either allowing multiple submissions that all can vie for a chance on the leaderboard

Currently, my challenge outline already encourages multiple entries.  However, it is possible that something like 20 entries per person could spam the leaderboard quite a bit and overshadow an archive of entries that strives for good entrant diversity - you have a good point there.  So yes, I will add an "Exhibition Board".  Exhibition entries will have to abide by the same rules, with the one exception that no score calculation is necessary; showing scores will be optional there.  That will save entrants in that category from having to bust out their calculators and transcribe all the information.

I would still like to allow people to have multiple entries on the normal leaderboard though, so I'll just play it by ear and if someone starts spamming it too much I'll cap it off for that entrant and request that they not exceed a certain limit, like 3 to 5 or something per leaderboard division and the rest for exhibition.

My jaw would drop if I saw Scott Manley participate in my challenge, but I don't even know if he exists on these forums.  He's probably a busy man with all the content he produces.  Having Scott Manley actually come and post an entry here like Nicole did and have it on his channel would be exciting to watch, but I have a feeling the probabilities of that happening are roughly the same as having Lady Gaga perform live at my 38th birthday party.  Well, ok maybe not that bad but I thought it'd be a funny analogy.

There could be a larger proportion of benefit from the speed score in an entry that is using a kinetic strike, because with that type of strike the damage doesn't scale crazily.  The highest damage score possible from kinetic is 115,000.  Therefore, kinetic entries could possibly see a lot more fierce competition with regard to speed since there won't be a gargantuan damage score to wash it out and hinder craft speed via payload mass.

Edited November 19, 2016 by MunGazer

[ruinzv2]

Hello Everyone, ruinzv2 here and today I'm going to have a look at....

Ok, so I'm not Scott or anything, but I did stumble across Nicole's video while surfing the tubes and thought it seemed like a perfect one for me to take a crack at. I've never done a KSP challenge, but I've been playing with planes a lot lately because of a recent aviation interest and I've got a couple hundred hours of messing around in mostly vanilla KSP. In fact I downloaded a bunch of mods for the first time specifically to do this challenge. The flight was done almost entirely in IVA using a mod cockpit. The rest of the plane is vanilla except a mechjeb for datas, and BD for the booms. There are only a few exterior views after takeoff when I was checking things which I couldn't efficiently do otherwise.

Installed mods used during flight: BD Armory, Mechjeb, texture replacer/stock visual enhancements, mk2 Stockalike for the IVA cockpit

Yesterday I built a few planes while learning how to use BD Armory for the first time (Does radar ever work against non team objects? I gave up on that, but found the forward view was great for wing orientation in IVA.) and eventually I ended up with this mostly vanilla platform, the Decker Mk III. Don't ask about Mk I and II, they were.....sub-optimal. (RIP Jeb.) It utilizes two detachable fuel tanks slung under the wing to add an extra 400 lb of fuel. These are detached over the ocean prior to the engagement for this mission, but each drop tank is also fitted with a warhead because exploding is always more fun! 4 Mavericks wait patiently under the wing. Inside the cargo bay are two cluster bombs which also went unused in this mission due to their targeting. The active weapons were 4 Mavericks and 4 TOW missiles using FLIR optics for targeting. Only one Maverick successfully impacted, and I don't think the TOW missiles even acquired their guidance. 

I could definitely improve on my time significantly my approach to the target was crap and getting turned around to go home after probably ate up an extra 30+ seconds. I also need to practice with my targeting more, and maybe not kill my engines when I try to fire missiles. But for my first try at all of this I think I'll take the outcome, plus I was tired of learning. I didn't f3 after each objective, but the full video is a single run without any quickloads so it's all in the final log after I returned to KSC.

====================

Decker Mk III - Final Score: 209

Points:

8:17 to target (497), 142412 heat, and 34,170 funds

(826 / 497) * 50 = 83

(142412 / 60209) * 30 = 70

(96617 / 34170) * 20 = 56

===================

This is also my first time at video editing anything this size and I had to download and learn to use Lightworks. So if you have pointers on using Lightworks or just general advice I'd be happy to hear them too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LXb3uZ8ytg

 

[MunGazer]

1 hour ago, ruinzv2 said:

Hello Everyone, ruinzv2

Thanks for your entry in this challenge and welcome to the forums.  Considering you were doing many things for the first time, you did well. Many forum users here have all gone through the learning curve with all these mods and video editing in some way.

I haven't used Lightworks before and couldn't give you any tips on it.  I use windows Movie Maker which is a free desktop app, if it isn't already in your windows I think you can download it from Microsoft for free.  I used to use Photoshop Elements (that I paid money for, only to have it seemingly not be supported anymore by Adobe), but ended up learning that Movie Maker was faster, more intuitive and easier to use, and less buggy.  With movie maker, you can click the edit tab, then move the little timing marker where you want it and create "splits".  In this way, you can chop up the video you're editing into chunks, and then select specific chunks you've made (usually consisting of a selected segment between two splits) and either delete that chunk (such as a large uneventful portion of a video), time accelerate it to 4x, 8x, slow mo, etc., or a number of other things.  Oh, I use windows' built in gaming video capture tool to capture the raw original footage which is activated in-game by pressing Win + G.

I can give you a few pointers to help out with your attack runs, mods, piloting, etc. :  First, you should know that mod developers are currently still bringing bd armory up to date and one of the issues is the bomb aiming reticle.  They are working on it, and have a solution for that particular problem, but I think they are also working on several other issues and will likely bundle lots of fixes into one consolidated patch at some point in the near future.  The radar might not pick up something that's sitting on the ground, I think it may only work for aerial targets but I'm not sure as I haven't used it much.  The radar has been involved in some bugs here lately I think, but again I can't give specifics there.

I noticed that your final ingress to the target was at very high speed, over 600 m/s.  If you could slow down to, say, 300 m/s or less (probably not less than 200 m/s) before you get to within 10 km of the target, then you'll have a lot more time to slew your target pod nicely on to the target.  You can edit the bd armory input settings in-flight and map the slew and lock controls among other things to something more convenient than your mouse, like your POV hat switch or num pad arrow keys.

As for fighting your plane's wild pitching, you should learn to use the stock controls to adjust trim.  You can press Alt + W or Alt + S to trim your pitch down or up respectively, and likewise for yaw and roll keys although you won't need those as often.  The second thing other than trim control to ease your hand bones and muscle tension would be a mod like pilot assistant.  With that, you can simply select a vertical speed of 0 once you're at your desired altitude and pilot assistant will do a great job using a PID loop algorithm to keep your plane extremely stable, provided the plane is operating within reasonable parameters.

Your mavericks struck first and I think the detonations occurred in a sequence which prematurely detonated some of the others as they were nearing the target, but they obviously all pitched in for splash damage because a lone maverick doesn't do over 142k heat damage lol.

Anyway, I liked the IVA view that was nice with the visual enhancements.  It was pretty immersive to watch at several points.  Unique craft design as well, kind of feels like a sci fi fighter.

[ruinzv2]

4 minutes ago, MunGazer said:

windows Movie Maker which is a free desktop app

Yeah I tried that, saw ad's and ran away for a more free one. Lightworks is a more professional styled software, but a deep feature set means it has a bit of a curve with it too. I spent more time and versions making the movie than I did the bomber. lol I wanted to do time acceleration in post, but couldn't figure out how and I'm stubborn with tutorials at first. I figured I could just use the youtube annotations later to skip the ocean transit bits and leave everything at 1x. It lets everyone enjoy the entirety of Mozart. (which is apparently copyright on youtube even though it is public domain song released by another orchestra, stupid algorithms)

7 minutes ago, MunGazer said:

I noticed that your final ingress to the target was at very high speed, over 600 m/

I had brakes on my MK I and II models for that reason actually. the 1300 m/s was my main goal in the design. I accidentally dropped them while rearranging the engine configuration for the Mk III though. It had been a tri engine panther on the previous modeis with 4 radial brakes coming off the center. This is also the reason I tried to flare so much right over the runway and why I slowed down so early on in with my descent during return. Realizing I forget something critical and pushing forward, the Kerbal way! I totally subconsciously corrected for this by accidentally killing my engines anyways.  the actual final ingress after the turn was closer to 200 I think, but I wasn't lined up in either run.

11 minutes ago, MunGazer said:

use the stock controls to adjust trim. 

I try to design my craft to fly without SAS usually, but I think I had something clipping somewhere. With my mark II and onward something would cause clockwise torque but not always. Jebediah died eating the side of the VAB once or twice shortly after takeoff. I finally took the lazy way when I realized SAS worked good nuf to prevent spins, particularly during takeoff since there isn't much angle allowed with that camera hanging off the aft end. It is unbearably chunky, but I had already had a long day of kerbaling. I like the plane though and may use the platform again if any other challenges come up for it, so I may eventually find the issue and be able to do hands free flight with trim

[Deathpuff12]

Saw Nicole's video (awesome video, by the way) and had to give it a try! Luckily, my SR-72 was just laying around in a dusty hangar, so I decided to modify it (pretty much just by replacing the drone core with a cockpit, lol), and I made it into a nice supersonic bomber. It has 6 JDAMs and can reach a max speed of around 850m/s just over sea level. I'm not very good at KSP though, so it took longer than it should've and I ran out of fuel a few kilometers out and had to glide to the runway. I hope gliding doesn't count against me. Anyways, here's the Imgur link and the score:

http://imgur.com/a/ojiic

--------------------------------------

K-25 Skyward Score: 129 

Target destroyed at 12:00 on mission clock (720 sec), 62338 highest heat (JDAMs hit beside the craft, sadly), 47104 funds

A= (826/720)*(50) = 57

B= (62338/60209)*(30) = 31

C= (96617/47104)*(20) = 41

(57 + 31 + 41) = 129

--------------------------------------

I'm sure if I had aimed better and didn't go 6 km after I destroyed the rover, I could've gotten a much better score.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Deathpuff12
Thought I didn't have time at target, so I used the time on the screenshot after the destruction. Realized now that it shows when it exploded in the flight results.

[MunGazer]

1 hour ago, Deathpuff12 said:

K-25 Skyward

Cool plane, thanks for participating :).  No worries about some of the technicalities, the necessary information is present.  I will link your post into the board once I'm home.  If you ever want to refine your craft you're also welcome to come back and make additional entries in the future.

[Deathpuff12]

Thanks! I'll probably be posting another try soon, maybe this time I'll get there faster and do some more heat damage.

[ruinzv2]

15 hours ago, Deathpuff12 said:

I hope gliding doesn't count against me

I would call that fuel efficiency sir! I can't even hit the runway on the first pass when I aim for it with engines half the time. What altitude were you flying at? The thicker air will really slow down your top speed.

[Deathpuff12]

12 minutes ago, ruinzv2 said:

What altitude were you flying at?

It was like 1 am when I did it, so I don't remember well, but I was up somewhere around 5 or 6 kilometers high, and I have no idea how far out.

[ABalazs]

I've played with this mission for a week or so. First I've tried it with bombs, failing multiple times, because BDArmory's bomb aiming feature does not work properly in 1.2.1. So my solution is a missile plane, a pretty simple precision attacker with one Maverick only, built from the cheapest components suitable to the task, the A-1002-A Lil Dart.

A: 7:56 = 476s > (826/476)*50 = 86

B: 27494 heat  > (27494/60209)*30 = 13

C: 12740 funds  > (96617/12740)*20 = 151

A+B+C: 250

And this is the run

I will try again with bombs - lots of them - when the bombing reticle fix happens in BDArmory.

[ruinzv2]

I was thinking of trying this again with a couple of designs that I've made for GDJ's Top Gun challenge. That 250 score makes me want to give it another go for sure now. I was also thinking about trying my hand at making a similar challenge using other targets elsewhere. I have a lot of fun building and planning for objective styled missions like this.

9 minutes ago, Deathpuff12 said:

somewhere around 5 or 6 kilometers high

Try pushing your height until at least 10k, then feel it out from there. Below 10k is swimming in soup. Lots of air for the engines to breath down low, but also a lot of air there to push against. I bet you'll have TONS of fuel left and/or a faster time with a higher elevation on the flight plan. (Engines also get more efficient at higher altitudes... until they suddenly don't.)

[DoctorDavinci]

12 minutes ago, ABalazs said:

I will try again with bombs - lots of them - when the bombing reticle fix happens in BDArmory.

Remove Module Manager and the bombing reticle should work

2 minutes ago, ruinzv2 said:

I was also thinking about trying my hand at making a similar challenge using other targets elsewhere. I have a lot of fun building and planning for objective styled missions like this.

Perhaps this would be your cup of tea .....

 

[ruinzv2]

I was looking at that challenge before, but I haven't taken a crack at it yet. I'll definitely have to give it a shot soon. I think the same planes I want to try on this could work out there as well. I need to practice my bombing and those targets look much closer.

[MunGazer]

1 hour ago, ABalazs said:

the A-1002-A Lil Dart

Nice plane and nice score, thanks.  Good luck with the follow up operation with bombs.

1 hour ago, DoctorDavinci said:

Remove Module Manager and the bombing reticle should work

 

1 hour ago, DoctorDavinci said:

Perhaps this would be your cup of tea .....

I'm slowly but surely working on my entry for your challenge, Doc.  Sunday I had a gunship I made that had a mix of 105mm cannon and several Vulcans, but for some reason after firing the 105's, the Vulcan group's firing would glich somehow and basically disable themselves.  I was using the 105mm's for the initial hit and then cleaning up with high volume of 20mm.

I plan to try your recommendation of removing module manager and making a different craft than the gunship and having another go at your challenge.

Edit:  Alright, tried removing module manager and for some reason I still get the same problem.  It is of course working for you, Doc.  What version of KSP and BDArmory are you using?  I'm wondering if perhaps a fresh install without module manager would be required.

Edited November 29, 2016 by MunGazer

[Deathpuff12]

2 hours ago, DoctorDavinci said:

Perhaps this would be your cup of tea .....

 

Maybe I can use my A-10 replica! Or, since there are no rules about making an aircraft, I could use my 400 part realistic looking tank!

 

Also, I've got another submission. I actually did amazing this time.

I present: The KB-26 Kraken! Fully equipped with 5 JDAMs, the Kraken has 2 Whiplash engines and a single HyperBlast ScramJet engine. It can reach a max speed of about 1,400 m/s.

http://imgur.com/a/bmsJF

 

KB-26 Kraken Score: 1365

(826 / 453)*(50) = 91
(2532596 / 60209)*(30) = 1262
(96617 / 161474)*(20) = 12

(91 + 1262 + 12) = 1365

Edited November 29, 2016 by Deathpuff12